||[Jan. 10th, 2019|02:43 am]
Stephen Kinnock: This week our cross-party group Norway Plus published Common Market 2.0, a clear plan that respects 52-48 mandate, addresses concerns about free movement, protects jobs in my Aberavon constituency and helps to re-unite our deeply divided country. If the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected on Tuesday, will she then give the House the opportunity to vote on a range of the options including Common Market 2.0, and will she be giving her benches a free vote on those options?|
Theresa May: ...right honourable gentleman, as he knows, I am working to ensure that the deal that has been negotiated by the UK government with the European Union is voted positively on by this Parliament, because it is a good deal, it does what he wants, it protects jobs and security; it also delivers in full on the referendum result, which is a key issue, I believe we owe it to people to deliver what they wanted, which was control of money, borders, and laws, and that's what the deal does.
But this is clearly not what the question was about. The question was about what happens if May’s deal, however wonderful, is rejected. Why is it normal for politicians to evade direct questions (I remember Kavanaugh do it, and Hillary do it) instead of, for example, acknowledging the question and saying that they cannot answer it at the moment? This pretend loss of ability to recognize what is being asked, how has it become the norm for people who are supposed to be rational thinkers and make rational decisions?